Skip to main content

About your Search

English 34
Search Results 0 to 33 of about 34 (some duplicates have been removed)
that we need to go forward in getting our economy turned around, in reducing our deficit in creating jobs. so i think when jim deminute looked around, he looked and saw a future where he would be standing by himself very often and likely face ago dwindling even greater dwindling number of tea party advocates and allies. i think he headed for the doors because he thinks that probably, as he said, the only way he's going to have a significant impact is through a think tank. >> to switch over to your side of the capitol the house of representatives, the tea party there seems to be playing defense. i know alan west, one of your close buddies was upset that he lost, he is gone. how does it feel when you look at john boehner the speaker republican leader and he knows every day that the tea party which had held him hostage the last two years the tea party in the house is playing defense, as well it seems. >> well, i was playing more than defense. unfortunately it feels like in the house the tail continues to wag the dog. you still seem to have a leadership on the republican side in the house led
the kinds of revenue from the wealthiest americans to help the economy grow and achieve deficit reduction and this puts us on a path towards a better economy. >> [inaudible question] what will he do at this moment? >> i would simply redirect that question to the republican leaders, who to this day, have not put forward any proposal on how they would achieve revenues and address the issue on the top 2%. there is no other way to do it, there is no other mathematically sound way to do it. making vague promises about achieving revenue through capping deductions were closing loopholes, it simply doesn't add up to a serious proposal. we haven't heard which deductions they would cap or which loopholes they were close. what is true is that other proposals that have been put forward include attempts to raise revenue only through closing loopholes and limited deductions can only achieve this if the middle class gets stuck with the bill. or if you have a proposal that is wildly limply unfeasible because it suggests that we would wipe out charitable deductions. it is simply impossible and getting som
and screaming that can't be part of it, yet all of them privately will tell you what's driving the deficit more than any single thing of medicare and medicaid and longer-term social security, so the mere fact that we are discussing those types of things fit. in terms of the votes, look, if it's going to be a deal there has to be votes from both sides. the reality is -- and these guys, the president and the speaker dealt with one another before. they've never been able to come to a deal. they came to a huge deal during the lame-duck session in 2010 on extending the bush tax cuts. they came to another deal without shutting down the government in april of 2011 cutting discretionary spending by billions of dollars and they came to another one on the debt ceiling as well which was a 2.2 trillion dollar long-term reduction in exchange for an increase in the debt ceiling. so, you know, the need to take it to another level. this is a more complex problem, and it's the beginning of a series of negotiations between the two. they are going to be together for the next four years. the president won the elec
the deficit, create jobs. so we know we have to have growth. we know we have to make cuts. we know we have to have revenue. you can't get from here to there without it. so if you read closely what they have in their letter, even though it's bare bones, you have voucher rising of medicare, you have a return to the ryan budget, which priorities are not priorities that i think the american people share. >> rates, can there be a deal done with the rates not going up? >> no. i'm an appropriator for a long time in the congress. we used to have an expression. it's not the price. it's the money. this is not to be punitive on the people who make over $250,000. it's just to be fair to the entire country. you need that additional revenue in order to reduce the deficit and continue to make investments in growth. >> if speaker boehner says that, you know, we're not going to move on the rates, where are we? >> i hope that's just a bargaining position. but the fact is we have talked about it two step. do a down payment on cuts, on investments and on revenue this year and then in the next year, take the t
it in building a good, solid farm bill which actually found $23 billion in savings towards the deficit. we did it in passing a strong highway bill that will strengthen our nation's infrastructure. and we did it most recently this week in working through a large and complex defense authorization bill that will keep our nation safer and more secure in these perilous times. it will take more of this kind of cooperation and consensus building to address the very real and substantial challenges facing our nation today. that is why i'm deeply concerned about a proposal floated recently by some members of the majority regarding the rules of the senate. they propose to change the nearly 100-year-old senate rule that requires a two-thirds majority to change the operating rules of the senate. our colleagues in the majority are proposing to use a simple majority vote to make the change. that's the issue here. the issue is the manner in which they plan to do it. once the precedent of changing a rule with a simple majority vote is established, 51 senators could change the rules to suit their own convenienc
the gramm-rudman deficit law, which was so important at the time. those issues remain important today. he did not aspire to be a politician, and he did not have to like one. he cared deeply. [laughter] we know he cared deeply about our country and devoted himself because he had a calling to shape and preserve our country's future. he believed deeply in the rule of law and used the force of his intellect to defend it. one of the things that is most telling about warren rudman is the statement that represents what he was all about. he once said -- i consider myself an american first and a republican second. fiercely independent, and totally committed to the common good, he had the courage of his convictions and stood for what he believed in. in bidding farewell to the senate in 1992, he expressed gratitude for the opportunity to serve in the senate with talented colleagues. many are here today to speak about their experiences with him. he also expressed his hope for the future of the senate, saying it is a very special place with very special people. i hope in the coming years that the inst
was pleased to receive her endorsement. >> greta: when you became governor, you inherented a in--d a deficit. do you remember what it was? >> yes. the day before the election, the general election, it was $250 million. >> greta: million? >> uh-huh. keep in mind, the state budget is only 5.6 billion, so the day before the general election we were having it reported as $250 million. the day after the election it came $450 million. >> greta: what happened in those 24 or 48 hours? >> certainly the administration that was in place was not being truthful with the public, and so the day after i certainly was informed that the deficit was much bigger. >> greta: how does that happen? weren't the figures public? i mean, i assume that people were following and reporting on governor richardson as a steward of the economy here. >> no. that was not what was happening. when was coming out -- what was coming out of the governor's office were figures that were not being honest with the people. >> greta: you must have just about fallen over when you saw the number jump in a period of 24 or 48 hours. >> absolu
low for middle-class families against the urgency of addressing our national budget deficits. by keeping tax rates low for 98% of americans and letting the tax rates go up very modestly for families earning over $250,000 a year, the democratic plan would cut the deficit by as much as a trillion dollars over the next decade. now, that alone doesn't cure our budget imbalance, but along with fair and sensible tax reforms and smart cuts in spending, it is part of the solution. let's be clear about one thing. the middle-class tax cut act would still benefit high-end taxpayers. families making over $250,000 a year would pay lower tax rates on their first $250,000. so if a family made $255,000, they'd only see an increase on the top $5,000 and then only to the clinton era rates that were in effect during the 1990's when, as we all recall, our economy was thriving. under the senate-passed plan, a family earning $255,000 a year would pay an extra 150 bucks in taxes. in opposing the middle-class tax cuts act, republicans claim that it would hurt the economy to raise tax rates on the to
. i mean it hurt my knees. >> the plan to reduce the deficit with bill clinton former chief of staff. those are your 5@5:30. doug luzader is life in washington with more. >> good morning, guys. we are looking for an important report coming out today. the expectation is -- first of all talking about unemployment. we know they fell. but the expectation today is that the unemployment rate will probably be unchanged which means it is stuck at about 7.9 percent. as far as the markets are concerned they are not exactly tanking but there is a lot of uncertainty. businesses and investors are unsure about what their tax burdens will be like this year. the impact that the fiscal cliff could have on the economy will go up across the board. >> as we get closer and closer to the end of the year i think the uneasiness will continue and the worry we might not see a resolution is going to effect our market. >> it has an impact or hiring as well. physical we go over the cliff the long-term benefits will in fact expire at the end of the year. as the president visited a family in virginia to talk about
trillion and due to expire in february without more deficit reduction. >> history shows that the only major deficit cutting deals we ever do around here ever comes after debates over the debt ceiling. it may be a good idea if you don't care about the debt, but it's a nonstarter for those of us who do. >> reporter: public opinion generally is on the president's side. house republicans are not paralyzed or powerless. in fact, they're more unifyied behind speaker boehner than they were on the debt crisis a year ago. why does this matter? the white house is noticing if there is a deal boehner can find the votes to pass it. >> thanks. we want to give you an idea of what's really at stake here. rebecca jarvis has a lock at how the government spends money and how it could spend less. rebecca, good morning. >> good morning. >> it comes up in terms of the money we're talking about in raising rates. how much is it that the republicans are objecting to? >> if you lock at that $250,000 number, if you were to raise taxes on everybody making $250,000 or more in this countr
they will not increase the debt ceiling now $16 trillion and due to expire in february without more deficit reduction. >> history shows the only major deficit cutting deals we ever do around here, ever, comes after debates over the debt ceiling. it may be a good idea if you don't care about the debt, but it's a non-starter for those of us who do. >> reporter: public opinion generally is on the president's side, but republicans in the house are not paralyzed or perilous, more unified behind speaker boehner than a year ago. why is this important? the white house is beginning to notice and now believe there is a deal boehner can find the stroets pass it. >> an idea what's really at stake. rebecca jarvis has a look how the government spends money and how it could spend less. rebec rebecca, good morning. >> reporter: good morning. >> the question comes up in terms of the money that we're talking about in raising the rate. how much is it that the republicans are objecting to? >> if you look at that $250,000 number, if you were to raise taxes on everybody making $250,000 or more in the country that would ra
deficit and debt. so this, this legislation both accomplishes that goal and still provides an increase in diversity which is what the senator from new york was talking about. and then an additional point is the point that the senator from texas so very clearly made. this legislation passed the house. last time i checked, legislation has to pass the senate and the house. that's a pretty important distinction. going back to the comments of the senator from kentucky. he said hey, if we can't do it all at once because of disagreements, let's start getting done what we can get done. so here is a bill that provides us with -- with people who can help our economy grow, people in the sciences and technology fields that we very much need. it will increase diversity just as the senator from new york said, and it's passed the house. common sense says let's go. let's pass the bill. so we very much want to join with the senator from new york and the senator from delaware and the other sponsors that he referred to, but let's join on something that can actually get done, meaning a bill that passes th
, but not as part of the process to reduce the deficit the country faces. >> there's a notion some republicans are for lack of a better word salivating at a possible it divide where you have some democrats who want no movement on entitlements and if there's any heat to be taken, it to come from the gop or go to the gop. >> let me just say a couple of things. first of all, what geithner was referring to is that social security shouldn't be on the table right now because it's not a driver of the deficit we're dealing with right now. he's referring to a separate process next year. what the republicans have asked for previously and i hope they're not going to continue to ask for is essentially the dismantling of medicare. we debated it during the presidential with paul ryan's proposal to put -- turn medicare into a voucher system. so when it comes to looking for savings in medicare, there's ways to find savings without breaking the guarantee that we've had to our seniors for the last several decades. i think democrats, again, have demonstrated repeatedly that we're willing to compromise, but the r
is an agreement that gets our long-term deficit under control in a way that's fair and balanced. and that kind of agreement would be good for our businesses, it'd be good for our economy, it would be good for our children's future and i believe that both parties can agree on a frame work that does that in the coming weeks. in fact, my hope is to get this done before christmas. >> so right now, all eyes are on the white house. the country doesn't need a victory lap, it needs leadership. it's time for the president, congressional democrats to tell the american people what spending cuts they're willing to make and we'd like to thank the president for adopting the fox news slogan there and as we get closer to the fiscal cliff, both sides seem to be standing tough and what about the coverage, jim in. >> i think the debate overall that began with simpson bowls saying we should roughly have tax cuts, tax increases, pardon me, and spending cuts and so the media narrative is sort of, can we get simpson bowls through a recalcitrant republican congress? and what's changed though, i think it's really a ro
are aproasmed to chaiapproached tochair a commits to set up a deficit reduction plan for the country. you study it. you're very diligent. everybody hates it within 24 hours. the democrats say it's too austere. the republicans say you're raising tax too much. two years later as we stand on the precipiceave cliff, suddenly this plan as seen as the mosterably thing in town and people are coming to you to find out your sage advice. what happened in those two years? >> well, the people woke up. i think young people are waking up. you can't do this. you can't tax your way out of this hole. you can't grow your way out of this hole. we had every economist say you could have double-digit growth for 20 years and can't get out of the hole. you can't cut spending out of your hole. we got five democrats, five republicans, ranging from dick durbin to illinois-- great progressive democrat-- and coburn from oklahoma, and five dems, five republicans, one independent, that's a super majority. and for god's sake the reason we were so successful is that we effectively pissed off everybody in america. ( laughter ).
for four years, i left unemployment high, i increased the size of the debt and the deficit, i got everything i wanted, the place is a mess and look, i got reelected. so, what's so hard about me continuing to doing that and blaming it on them. obviously, i'm very good at that and that's base clr where he's going here and the republicans i think are not very good poker players, they're signaled they're relucks tennant to go over the cliff. if you're in this showdown, i is a, come on, bring it. >> paul: they will get blamed if that happens and the president is signaling that. that wouldn't be a pleasant outcome for them. you're saying they should suggest to the president we had he' be willing to do that and maybe he'll give at the end? >> yeah, i think they have to show that they are it, that he's in a negotiation and that he has to give and that they're willing to give and if they just say, look, we're so afraid of getting blamed for that, of course, he's going to roll over them. >> kim, where do you think the republicans are? where should they go here? do they have real options, an
years to reduce the deficit and restructure the fiscal policy. so is eventually to bring the budget into balance. this framework must include tax reforms to raise more revenues and encourage growth and enhance productivity. it must include parameters defined in future levels of debt as a share of the gdp. it must include changes to discretionary spending and entitlements as well as defense. our elected leaders should launch legislation that will construct this framework and 2013. including powerful but appropriate default of enforcement mechanisms. without a recalibrated unsustainable fiscal policy, the united states international standing will decline in the national security will be undermined. such an outcome would be bad for the united states, and it could be bad for the world. as pete said, he and i are joined here today by three distinguished individuals. those serving america for decades made who made a difference in how to come up with solutions to very complex problems. it has been a privilege for me to be with them in approaching what this coalition and those who are not h
know, one thing is we take a huge bite out of the deficit. we do it in a crude may, and there would be immediate attempts to fix it and fine-tune it and take some back. some would probably get through. if you actually want to look at it from a policy standpoint, it may not be the worst possible option to just go over the cliff and then put back in the tax cuts and the spending increases or renewals that you'd like to put back in. so, you know, worst things could happen. >> well, listen, alan simpson and i go back to his sound from the "today" show, eugene. he said anyone talking about it in that way, there's stupidity involved. he didn't say, eugene, you better not because you're my buddy, but the reality is even our first read team says this notion or all of this media hype about going off the cliff from some of our colleagues is overstated. to their point a deal is in sight, that's why boehner and the president spoke yesterday. it's a matter of how big. will they separate the tax cuts from a larger needed plan later down the road? i guess what you folks in d.c. like to call "kicki
. guest: this is a time when people in congress are talking more seriously about reducing the deficit, getting rid of fraud as the caller was talking about. than many times in the past. now, whether they can follow through on that goal is a question. but i would sort of advise the caller to keep paying attention and see whether maybe something that he would like comes out of this. host: you've been write being taxes for five years. you've been in washington now for five years, is that -- ok. so you've heard discussions about deficit reduction over the years and tax policy. guest: yeah. host: we always seem to focus on the out years. when it comes to a lot of these issues. do the out years ever come about or does policy get changed before any real cuts are made? guest: so that they are pushing -- they're delaying the pain is what you're saying and they'll come back and -- yeah. that has occurred, the very famous one is the doc fix. i'm sure you're familiar with. they back in the 1990's reduced payments to doctors through medicare and then decided that wasn't such a good idea after doct
the business community views this deficit thing as the biggest problem that we can solve that we need to solve. there's something called a campaign to fix the debt, which i'm on the steering committee, 120 leading ceos from everything from general electric to jpmorgan on down. really committed to doing something and accepting the idea that revenues have to go up, not ideological about how, but most of all, wanting a big $4 trillion package. and so they have become, in effect, allies of the president. they're really trying to get to the same place. at some point there may be differences over how much entitlements, how much this or that, but right now their interests are aligned, and they both agreed to be friends again. and so they've spent a stream of business ceos into the white house. the president -- yesterday the business roundtable and gave a very warm and accommodating speech. and they are comrades in arms, the least for the time being. >> willie, what a big difference from what we heard from business leaders for the first four years. this is a pretty dramatic shift. >> or even just a fe
with respect to our deficit and debt is a national security liability. we need our senior leadership. we need a senior leadership to take it on. we have an opportunity to do so. we have a requirement to do so. at the foundation of national power is ultimately economic comment and in terms of global influence, in terms of the ability to support a military, the economic is foundation. and we have i think the united states, both an opportunity to require it to get our house in order, and i believe that our 100 senators and members of the house will step up on this and sufficient majority in the coming months. >> how do you look at your surplus of the u.s.? does that say we have america under our control? >> we are one of the closest allies of the united states. so of course our position today to united states is very, very decisive, strengthen our relationship. so these are not, there is no intention for us to try to use this kind of economic relationship in different context. so we are very satisfied with the current relationship with the united states. that's all spent let me open up to the fl
a significant trade deficit. the value of their oil imports are greater than their exports to iran. this provision should lock up a substantial portion of iran's earnings from its oil sales in each of these countries. as for the financial executions will longer be able to transfer iran's oil earnings beyond their countries borders without fear of losing their access to the u.s. financial system, iran will be severely limited in its ability to transfer funds across jurisdictions. oil revenues will largely be shackled with a given country, and only usable to purchase goods from that country. as you might imagine, we have been hitting the road, making sure that our partners in the international financial community understand the significance of this provision. perhaps the greatest endorsement of our efforts has come from the iranian president himself. speaking in october, ahmadinejad said, "the enemy has announced it has introduced sanctions on the purchase of iran from iraq. even worse, it has imposed banking sanctions, meaning of some oil is sold, its revenues are not transferable t
to the deficit. social security should not be on the table. these guys hate social security so much, they want to get rid of social security and medicare so much that everything they put forward has to have cuts in medicare and social security. so that's a nonstarter. the president has said he's not going to touch social security. the president said he's not going to raise the eligibility age for medicare. and the president has also said jay carney said it again yesterday, he's not even going to consider any bill that continues tax rates for the wealthiest of americans. >> he will not sign an extension of the bush era tax cuts for the top 2%. full stop. >> bill: full stop. >> this is what i don't get about this. this is not some new idea. this is not something that obama is you know, pulling out of the clear blue sky. it is something he ran on. this is what the election was about. >> bill: and the people voting. >> overwhelmingly. >> bill: we have to go back to the beginning. these tax cuts were enacted by george
Search Results 0 to 33 of about 34 (some duplicates have been removed)